CHRIS LEONARD THORNES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1D14-4431

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 6, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Tatiana Salvador, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Pamela D. Presnell, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Criminal Bureau 

Chief, Criminal Appeals, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

We previously affirmed Appellant’s sentence for aggravated assault and 

possession of firearm by a convicted felon based on our en banc decision in 

Walton v. State, 106 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), which held that mandatory 
2

minimums under the 10-20-Life statute must be imposed consecutively regardless 

of whether the defendant possessed or discharged a firearm. However, the Florida 

Supreme Court quashed our decision in this case and remanded for reconsideration 

in light of its decisions in Walton v. State, 208 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 2016) (Walton II), 

and Williams v. State, 186 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 2016). See Thornes v. State, 42 Fla. L. 

Weekly S680 (Fla. May 26, 2017). 

In Williams, the Court held that “consecutive sentencing of mandatory 

minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if the 

offenses arose from the same criminal episode and a firearm was merely possessed 

but not discharged.” 186 So. 3d at 993; accord Walton II, 208 So. 3d at 64. But, 

the Court also held that “[i]f . . . multiple firearm offenses are committed 

contemporaneously, during which time multiple victims are shot at, then 

consecutive sentencing is permissible but not mandatory.” Williams, 186 So. 3d at 

993. 

Williams did not directly address whether or not consecutive mandatory 

minimum sentences were permissible where, as here, the defendant only shot at 

one victim but was convicted of multiple firearm offenses arising out of the same 

criminal episode.*

 However, in Burns v. State, this court read Williams to permit 

 

* Appellant was charged with separate counts of aggravated assault for shooting at 

two victims, but the jury only found him guilty of one of the aggravated assault 

counts. 
3

the trial court to impose consecutive sentences in these circumstances. 212 So. 3d 

546, 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“As Burns discharged a firearm striking a single 

victim and as both offenses arose out of a single criminal episode, consecutive 

sentences were permissible but not required.”); see also Wilson v. State, 2017 WL 

1653435 (Fla. 1st DCA May 2, 2017).

Accordingly, based on Williams, we vacate Appellant’s sentence because 

the trial court believed based on our prior precedent that it was required to impose 

consecutive mandatory minimum sentences, and based on Burns, we remand for 

the trial court to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to impose concurrent or 

consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. Also, as we did in Burns, we certify 

conflict with Torres-Rios v. State, 205 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (holding 

that concurrent sentences must be imposed under section 775.087(2) where a 

single shot is fired at only one person during a single criminal episode). 

Sentence VACATED and REMANDED with directions.

WOLF, WETHERELL, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR